The report did show some signs of strength in secondary numbers in the report. Average hourly wages were up 5 cents to $15.70, in line with forecasts, and the average hourly work week rose 0.1 to 33.7 hours, which was just below the forecast of 33.8."

There is something strange going on between the payroll survey that the BLS uses to calculate official job gains/losses, and the household surveys that are used to calculate the unemployment rate and related statistics. Also from the CNN article:

More importantly, the survey of households, used to compute the unemployment rate, showed 629,000 more people at work than in June. The other payroll number is based on a survey of employers. One economist said he believes this suggests problems with the employer survey.

"I don't have any faith that 32,000 jobs added reflects what's going on," said [Wachovia Securities senior economist Mark] Vitner, who had forecast a 280,000 gain in the payroll number. "The growing disconnect between the surveys is too much to dismiss."

Claims for new unemployment benefits are running under 350,000 per week, which is historically consistent with monthly payroll gains of 200,000-300,000 jobs. The continuing unemployment claims statistic, which is around 2.9 million, is also not consistent with stagnant or negative job growth.

In short, the statistics are contradictory: the arrows are pointing up and down at the same time. Certainly the payroll gains aren't where they should be, but there is a danger in relying too much on one number. If next month's payroll growth continues to be flat, and unemployment claims rise, and the household surveys come below expectations, then I'll agree we're in trouble. Otherwise, we're just reading tea leaves.

Mdsh00
From United States, joined May 2004, 425 posts, RR: 0
Reply: 1
Posted Fri Aug 6 2004 19:05:58 UTC+1 and read 41 times:
Ah but wait until the spin doctors get their hands on it. As well as our die-hard Bush supporters on this board.

As opposed to all those Die hard Bush Haters on this board.

Somehow balance has to be maintained. Or would you prefer no one have opposite views?

You know when i was in college several years ago taking economics courses we came across something called "structual unemployment" and that anything under 6% or so can be attributed to it.

Structural unemployment: Unemployment caused by a mismatch between workers' skills and skills needed for available jobs. Structural unemployment essentially occurs because resources, especially labor, are configured (trained) for a given technology but the economy demands goods and services using another technology. Employers seek workers how have one type of skill and workers who seek employment have a different type of skill. This mismatch in skills, which is largely the result of technological progress, creates unemployment of the structural variety. Structural unemployment is one of four unemployment sources. The other three are cyclical unemployment, seasonal unemployment, and frictional unemployment. (ref: http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/gls.pl?fcd=dsp&key=structural+unemployment

Look at the definitions of unemployment and decide where the current situation fits.

Even the New York Slimes was able to see that the way we count "jobs" is out of date and needs to updated. Way too many people are employed by small businesses or are self employed and yet these people are not counted in the "Establishment Survey".

Again,how can you possibly blame Bush for this?The causes of high oil prices are soaring demand in a quickly industrialising China and smaller percentage rises in other industrialised economies especially the US.On the supply side most countries are producing flat out and the central banker of the oil world,Saudi Arabia, lacks the ability it has enjoyed in past times to manipulate the oil price.The (exaggerated)idea of drilling in the park in Alaska is opposed by many who are probably blaming the current high oil prices on Bush.

Secondly,we must remember the underlying factors in the US economy over the past few years.The bubble created by the tech industry was larger than that of the late 1920s, yet the US economy experienced a relatively small downturn.This is even more amazing given the effects of Sep11 (and we as aviation fans/workers should know this all too well.)

There are economic areas to attack Bush:the pork-laden energy bill and the profligate farm bill but many on the left are overplaying their hands when attacking Bush on the economy.

L-188. when the jobs being created go back into negatives, let's see you spin it for us.

The fact is, Bush is still the first President since the Depression to have a net jobs loss; many areas of the nation are still hemmoraging jobs; the jobs being created in their place aren't as high paying.

This economy isn't the greatest ever, even though Republicans keep saying that. This economy is a small fry compared to that which we had in the 90's.

Once a person on unemployment loses there unemployment benefits they are no longer counted in the UE statistics so I wonder of those who have not found work by the end of their benefit period what the count for those people are and how that would size up against the JOB the ole Georgie boy claims he has created.............

Do I smell a possibility we are already in the negative and don't even know it???

So, with Mr. Clinton, it's all luck, but with Mr. Bush, it's all just good old GOP know-how?

ROTFL. Right. Well, luck or not, I haven't seen any of the last three GOP Presidents balance the budget. Clinton did. Maybe it's luck, but I think some economic brains, and not some half-assed belief in supply-side, trickle-down, voodoo economics had something to do with it.

And while the economy isn't great, it would have been a hell of a lot worse yet if the steps that Bush took in 2000, such as tax cuts and rebates wouldn't have happened.

Yes, those HUGE tax cuts, of about $250 for the average American! What an idea. Oh, and Bush got back like $45 grand, and Cheney like $340 grand. The only people that were helped at all from these tax cuts were the rich-the same rich who already spend all the money they want, and have no clue what to do with all the money they have. Trickle-down is the biggest fucking like the GOP has ever tried to pull on Americans-and you sop it up like it was something great.

And you keep on lying that you're not a Republican.

By all rights we should have been talking depression, not mild recession like we had now.

That was probably the most ludicrous thing you've ever said. We were nowhere near a depression; we wouldn't have been close to a depression. Such ass-kissing for Bush, in such a delusional way, is really tainting what little credibilty you have, which isn't much.

We were nowhere near a depression; we wouldn't have been close to a depression

Well you where correct on the 1st part, we didn't get near one, on the second part of that sentence you swung on and missed

Yes, those HUGE tax cuts, of about $250 for the average American! What an idea. Oh, and Bush got back like $45 grand, and Cheney like $340 grand

Boy it must be nice to be able to consider $250 a small amount of money. Unfortunatly that isn't my case. And it is hardly unfair that a percentage drop in rates results in somebody making less getting less of a refund then somebody making more.

I think you unreasonable rabid hatred of GW is getting in the way of your common sense Alpha1.

Boy it must be nice to be able to consider $250 a small amount of money.

Well, considering Cheney could build a nice-sized house with what he got, and I can get maybe a trip and a half of groceries, you don't have a freaking clue what you're talking about. If $250 is a lot to you, you're dirt poor, and I'm not buying that load of manure.

Again, if you really want to help generate economic movement, give a $5000 tax cut to middle class Americans, where that money won't be lost among millions that one doesn't know what to do with. You'd see people putting down payments on cars; or on home improvements, or on vacations.

When you give it to the wealthiest, it doesn't generate economic activity. Not when thoe people already have more than enough to spend.

I think you unreasonable rabid hatred of GW is getting in the way of your common sense Alpha1.

What is unreasonable and rabid is your constant fibs on not being a Republican. No one buys that on here.

And again, I don't hate Bush. I hate his policies. Now, Cheney, I come close to hating that bastard, who should be behind bars. Bush is to pitiful to hate.

>Boy it must be nice to be able to consider $250 a small amount of money<

$250.00 is just about enough to pay my gas to go earn a living and insurance for one month, not exactly enough for the new STOVE that GWB spoke of.......L188 remember that $250.00 is per year....jeez I hope I didnt ruin your spin.

This will be the month that Bush either will win or lose the White House....GWBs Daddy lost the White House in Aug of 1992 when Clinton proved he knew what really was right for the USA and lets not spin it with Whitewater and Monica......

But I dont think Bush cares if he continues to live on Pen Ave.....he's already set for life with the riches of Iraq.

I am astonished that the so-called "most powerful country in the world" can't figure out if the economy is "good" or "bad".

I've read so many spins on the matter that I really can't figure it out. It seems to all come down to who you talk to. If you're rich, the economy is good. If you're not, then its bad.

I tend to believe the latter because under Bush's administration, the rich seem to have gotten richer. Therefore, those who control the media and big business (the rich) have an advantage with their particular spins since they have the greater ability to broadcast their views.

Once a person on unemployment loses there unemployment benefits they are no longer counted in the UE statistics so I wonder of those who have not found work by the end of their benefit period what the count for those people are and how that would size up against the JOB the ole Georgie boy claims he has created

This is an urban legend with no validity whatsoever. The unemployment rate is measured through a monthly survey of more than 60,000 households. It is NOT measured by simply counting the number of people who receive unemployment benefits. The Bureau of Labor Statistics definition:

Who is counted as unemployed? Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.

The late 1990s saw the biggest speculative bubble in history. In terms of its size relative to the economy, it was comparable to the run-up of the 1920s. Not only the stock market, but investment in fixed capital like telecommunications infrastructure and office space exploded to unsustainable levels. And yet the last recession was the mildest in the post-war period, and doesn't even meet the definition of "recession" by the informal "two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth" standard. Certainly part of the reason why the recovery has been somewhat slower than usual was the very mildness of the recession, which means that many of the unfeasible projects undertaken in the 1990s haven't been liquidated.

I am astonished that the so-called "most powerful country in the world" can't figure out if the economy is "good" or "bad".

Is it so surprising that a $10 trillion economy constituted by the individual decisions and choices of 300 million people can't be reduced to a single number?

Early each month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) of the U.S. Department of Labor announces the total number of employed and unemployed persons in the United States for the previous month, along with many characteristics of such persons. These figures, particularly the unemployment rate--which tells you the percent of the labor force that is unemployed--receive wide coverage in the press, on radio, and on television.

*** Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment the Government uses the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under State or Federal Government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed. ***

Other people think that the Government counts every unemployed person each month. To do this, every home in the country would have to be contacted--just as in the population census every 10 years. This procedure would cost way too much and take far too long. Besides, people would soon grow tired of having a census taker come to their homes every month, year after year, to ask about job-related activities.

Because unemployment insurance records relate only to persons who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to actually count every unemployed person each month, the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country. The CPS has been conducted in the United States every month since 1940 when it began as a Work Projects Administration project. It has been expanded and modified several times since then. As explained later, the CPS estimates, beginning in 1994, reflect the results of a major redesign of the survey.

There are about 60,000 households in the sample for this survey. The sample is selected so as to be representative of the entire population of the United States. In order to select the sample, first, the 3,141 counties and county-equivalent cities in the country are grouped into 1,973 geographic areas. The Bureau of the Census then designs and selects a sample consisting of 754 of these geographic areas to represent each State and the District of Columbia. The sample is a State-based design and reflects urban and rural areas, different types of industrial and farming areas, and the major geographic divisions of each State.

This household survey showed 629,000 jobs created last month. As I said in my first post, the establishment and household survey numbers do not agree. It is unfortunate that so much attention is focused on the establishment survey, to the exclusion of other important statistics.

Again, if you really want to help generate economic movement, give a $5000 tax cut to middle class Americans, where that money won't be lost among millions that one doesn't know what to do with. You'd see people putting down payments on cars; or on home improvements, or on vacations.

Now that would really get some "trickle-down" going. Great idea. Now why didn't Bush think of that?

Again, if you really want to help generate economic movement, give a $5000 tax cut to middle class Americans, where that money won't be lost among millions that one doesn't know what to do with. You'd see people putting down payments on cars; or on home improvements, or on vacations.

I agree,the tax cut should have been targeted more at the middle classes who are more likely to have a higher MPC than very high earners.

The unprecedented terrorist attack, skyrocketing fuel price, and two wars wouldn't have anything to do with that....nooooo of course not.

Well, let's see: other president's went through bad economies, national crisis, war, and they didn't have them.

Stop making excuses for Bush, excuses you wouldn't tolerate if this were a Democrat in office. He is the first president since the Depression to have net job losses. Deal with it, and make that fit into this "great" economy.

"But I dont think Bush cares if he continues to live on Pen Ave.....he's already set for life with the riches of Iraq."

What a remarkably ignorant comment that can in no way be backed up. Pity it has come to that.

And $250.00 is a good chunk of change to a lot of people, but since you seem to be doing well why don't you just send yours to me, I mean that is what you are suggesting right...simple income redistribution.

Again, if you really want to help generate economic movement, give a $5000 tax cut to middle class Americans, where that money won't be lost among millions that one doesn't know what to do with. You'd see people putting down payments on cars; or on home improvements, or on vacations.

I agree,the tax cut should have been targeted more at the middle classes who are more likely to have a higher MPC than very high earners.

The problem is that this recession wasn't caused by a drop in consumer spending, which has remained remarkably constant except for a small blip after September 11. It was caused by a dramatic falloff in business investment, which peaked early in 2000 and didn't really pick up until 2003, because there was so much excess capacity left over from the 1990s boom.

Stimulating business investment by cutting middle-class taxes to boost consumption spending is a very roundabout way of inducing a recovery. The accelerated depreciation allowances were probably the single most effective component of the tax cut package. Very low interest rates helped as well, but they led to incipient inflation and might have set up mini-cycle as the Fed raises rates again.

LOL.... James, consider who wrote it, and it is not much of a surprise is it? I would have liked to see him spell out "Pennsylvania"....

I like this line...
"Neither Bushes really give/gave a RatAss about those in the 50K or below income bracket."

Get a job other then call center flunky, working for a dying airline, and you might just make it up to the over $50k bracket... Then, when you see what being taxed is really like, I'll laugh when you bitch about that..

>>>And $250.00 is a good chunk of change to a lot of people, but since you seem to be doing well why don't you just send yours to me, I mean that is what you are suggesting right...simple income redistribution.<<<<<

Face it.........Bush needed somthing to get us all to rally around him after he was sworn in.........what a nice gimick and it worked.....now inflation has eaten up most of it......

I absolutely love the perception in this country, among both the die-hard Bush fans/haters, that Bush & Cheney are the elitist rich and people like Clinton, Kerry, etc are "working-class folks".

The last time I checked, not too many "working-class folks" owned several million-dollar homes across the country or were married to people who owned large multi-national corporations (like Heinz, for example). How do people actually believe this crap? And the Republicans are called "mindless automatons who can't think for themselves"?

MxCtrlr Freight Dogs Anonymous - O.O.T.S.K.

DAMN! This SUCKS! I just had to go to the next higher age bracket in my profile! :-(